WHO lamenting about terminology? [BE/BA News]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2020-12-07 15:35 (415 d 06:56 ago) – Posting: # 22124
Views: 2,129

Dear Helmut,

» Coming back to the WHO’s rant:

The calculation of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the mean test/comparator ratio for the primary PK parameters should not be confused with the two one-sided t-tests employed to reject the null hypothesis of non-equivalence. The end result is the same, but these are not the same calculations.


» IMHO, they are just fed up reading “TOST” whilst the CI inclusion approach acc. to the GL was actually performed.

Totally correct to lament about that fact, I think. It should unequivocally described in the protocol or the SAP which calculations will be done :yes:. The CI approach will be the favorite I think. It is requested in all guidelines about BE studies, if I dont err.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,854 posts in 4,573 threads, 1,554 registered users;
online 18 (0 registered, 18 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 22:32 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure
nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something
you actually don’t know.    Robert M. Pirsig

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5